The use of Tablet PCs for marking Level 3 physics and astronomy assignments

Transcription

1 The use of Tablet PCs for marking Level 3 physics and astronomy assignments Stuart Freake, Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Open University November 2008 Abstract Marking and commenting on electronic tutor marked assignments (etmas) requires a simple and efficient method for tutors to annotate students scripts. We have previously reported on a pilot project that provided associate lecturers (ALs) for a Level 2 physics course with Tablet PCs and appropriate software that enabled them to input handwritten annotation, including equations and diagrams, to files containing students' assignment solutions. Following the success of that pilot project, Tablet PC marking of etmas has been extended to two Level 3 physics and astronomy courses. An online survey of ALs at the end of the 2008 presentations of these two courses indicated general acceptance of this method of marking etmas, though the ALs were equally divided in their preferences for electronic or paper marking. 1 Introduction The Open University introduced electronic submission of tutor-marked assignments over ten years ago, and the current version of the system has been in operation since Use of the system has grown rapidly over the last few years, and in 2007 just over etmas were submitted, and about 80% of OU courses allowed students to submit their assignments electronically. However, only 50% of science courses allowed electronic submission, and the proportions are much lower than this for physics and astronomy courses and for mathematics courses. Assignments for physics and astronomy courses generally involve large amounts of mathematical notation, equations and diagrams. Many of the students studying these courses have the skills required to incorporate equations and diagrams into a word-processed file and have been submitting print outs of their word-processed TMAs to their ALs. Many other students could scan a handwritten TMA, combine the resulting image files into a single document and submit this electronically. However, until 2006 none of the physics and astronomy courses allowed students to submit etmas because of the difficulties associated with marking and commenting. ALs need to be able to insert equations and diagrams on students answers, and the time required to do this is the major issue. Keyboard and mouse based tools, such as equation editors and line drawing programs, are much more time consuming to use compared with annotating a paper script with a pen, and it is not reasonable to expect ALs to mark etmas with such tools. In 2006 the Physics Innovations Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (πcetl) set up a project to investigate whether a Tablet PC was an effective tool for marking physics etmas. The ALs for a Level 2 physics course (S207 The Physical World) were each provided with a Tablet PC and appropriate software, and students were given the options of submitting their assignments either electronically or on paper. The ALs had a number of possible methods for marking the etmas they received. The recommended method was to use the PDF Annotator application (Grahl Software Design), which was pre-installed on the Tablet PCs. This allowed ALs to insert handwritten ink marks and comments in a pdf file containing a student s answers, just as they would on a paper TMA. This circumvents the need to use equation editors or drawing packages for marking. Students could submit their etma in a variety of file formats; as long as the AL had the 24

2 appropriate software to open a student s file, they could use the PDF Creator application (Chinery and Heindorfer), also pre-installed on the Tablet PC, to convert the file to pdf format and then mark using PDF Annotator. However, the majority of students produced their etmas using Microsoft Word, and submitted doc files, and ALs then had the option of marking these assignments using ink tools available in Word. At the ends of both the 2006 and 2007 presentations of S207, the ALs were asked to provide detailed feedback on their experience of etma marking, and the results of these evaluations were reported earlier (Underwood and Freake, 2007). The feedback indicated that Tablet PCs provide a method of marking etmas that is effective and acceptable to students and a large majority of ALs. As a result of the success of the trial of Tablet PCs for marking Level 2 etmas, in 2008 the use of Tablet PCs was extended to two Level 3 courses. We report here on the 2008 project and on its evaluation. 2 The Level 3 physics and astronomy etma marking project The Level 3 courses involved in the marking project in 2008 were a physics course (SMT359 Electromagnetism) and an astrophysics course (S381 The energetic Universe). Each course includes four TMAs, and these are submitted at approximately two-monthly intervals between March and September. The numbers of students registered for these courses were 316 for SMT359 and 276 for S381, and the numbers of ALs tutoring the courses were 13 and 12, respectively. Since the etma marking project was set up after the ALs had been appointed, their participation in electronic marking was optional, and 11 of the 13 SMT359 ALs and 11 of the 12 S381 ALs agreed to take part. The participating ALs were provided with a Toshiba Tecra Tablet PC, with appropriate software installed to enable them to add handwritten annotation to a student s etma answers. They were also provided with a set of notes about the use of the Tablet PC for etma marking (Freake, 2008), which were based on experience gained and feedback received from the S207 trials in , and a copy of the report on the 2007 trial (Underwood and Freake, 2007). They were encouraged to participate in the OU s regionally-based training sessions on using the etma system and/or to study the etma training guides for ALs. Students were informed about the etma marking project via the course websites at the beginning of the course, and told about some of the benefits of using the etma system. It was made clear that student use of the etma system was optional, and that they should not spend a lot of time producing their TMA in electronic format at the expense of studying the subject matter of the course. Advice was provided about scanning handwritten assignments to produce a single file for electronic submission. They were told that not all ALs were able to participate in the etma marking project, and that if they wanted to submit etmas they should ask their AL whether etma submission was possible and what formats were acceptable for their etma files. It was left up to individual ALs to decide how much encouragement they gave to students to submit their assignments electronically. 3 Evaluation After completion of the 2008 presentations of SMT359 and S381, the ALs were asked to complete an online questionnaire (Freake, 2008) about their experience of marking etmas, and 20 of the 22 participants responded. In addition, information about the numbers of paper TMAs and etmas marked by each AL for each course assignment, and about the average marks for each set of assignments, were obtained from the assignment handling database Number of etmas submitted The proportions of assignments that were submitted electronically to participating ALs were 37% for SMT359 and 51% for S381. In both cases there was an increase in the proportion submitted electronically during the year, from 33% to 41% for SMT359 and from 47% to 53% for S381 (see Figure 1). Looking at the data in a different way, for SMT359, 36% of the students registered at the start of the course submitted at least one etma; the equivalent figure for S381 was 53%. There are very significant differences between the etma submission rates for 25

3 the two courses, with the probability of this occurring by chance less than In comparison, the proportion of TMAs submitted electronically for S207 in 2008 was 46%, and this proportion was reasonably steady during the year. Note that S207 ALs were not asked to participate in the online survey, since they had provided feedback after the previous two presentations of the course. % TMAs submitted electronically SMT359 S381 S207 0 TMA01 TMA02 TMA03 TMA04 TMA05 TMA06 TMA07 Figure 1 Percentage of TMAs submitted electronically for each assignment of SMT359 and S381 during 2008, and also for S207. There was a wide variation in etma submission rates for different tutor groups. Figure 2 shows the numbers of ALs for each course receiving different percentages of assignments as etmas. Two of the 23 participating ALs for the Level 3 courses received less than 20% of their TMAs electronically and three received more than 70% as etmas. There was a similar wide spread in the distribution for S SMT359 S381 S207 number of ALs % 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% % Figure 2 Number of ALs receiving different percentages of etmas in 2008 for SMT359, S381 and S207. One possible explanation for this large variation between the submission rates of etmas by different tutor groups is that ALs varied in their stance towards etma submission. ALs were asked about this in the survey, and most of them (10/19) said that they took a fairly neutral stance, indicating advantages and disadvantages of e-submission, but also indicating that they were happy to accept either form and it was up to individual students to decide. Seven of the tutors were more encouraging about use of etmas, and two strongly encouraged their students to use etmas. There is evidence that ALs who encouraged students to try the etma system, or who indicated a personal preference for electronic marking received a higher percentage of etmas: for SMT359, the two ALs who strongly encouraged e-submission received 66% of TMAs electronically and two who encouraged it received 51% electronically, whereas the seven who said they had been more neutral only received 28% electronically. For S381, the six ALs who encouraged e-submission received 54% etmas, whereas those who said they were more neutral received 43% etmas. An AL who received 86% of TMAs electronically had told students that I had a strong preference for etmas, and asked them to at least try one (not compulsory though). Of course, pushing students too hard to submit etmas could be counterproductive, and could lead to increased drop out by students who do not want to use the etma system. However, there is no evidence that this is happening. One measure of retention is the total number of TMAs submitted to an AL as a percentage of the number expected if all students who submitted the first TMA went on to submit all of the subsequent assignments. The correlation between this retention figure and 26

4 the percentage of assignments submitted to an AL as etmas was very small; for SMT359 the correlation coefficient was and for S207 it was -0.05, which indicates that there is no significant dependence of retention on etma submission rates for these courses. For S381, a tutor withdrew midway through the course and his students later TMAs were marked by other ALs, so meaningful retention data cannot be extracted. About 10% of the students who submitted one or more etmas reverted to paper submission for a subsequent TMA. In some cases the reversion was temporary a student on holiday with no access to a computer, for example but in other cases students decided that paper submission was quicker or more straightforward, or they had difficulties with using the etma system. However, the fact that about 90% of students who tried the electronic system continued to use it is an indication of their preference for this way of working. Average marks for etmas and paper TMAs Several ALs commented on differences between average marks for their students who submitted etmas and those who submitted paper TMAs. However, the small numbers of students in each AL s group mean than little statistical significance can be attributed to these observations. When average marks are determined at the course level, then we find that for SMT359 the mean etma mark for all ALs was 76.1, compared with a mean of 73.8 for paper TMAs, and for S381 the mean for etmas was 70.7, compared with 71.7 for paper TMAs. For S207, the etma mean was 77.0, and the paper TMA mean was At present we do not have marks for individual assignments, so we have not been able to test whether these differences are statistically significant. Any significant differences might be evidence for differences in ability levels of students submitting via the different routes or differences in ALs marking standards for the two types of TMA, so further investigation of these marks would be useful. Format of the etma files submitted ALs reported that about 62% of the etmas were wordprocessed, including the equations and diagrams. About 12% were largely word-processed, but with equations and/or diagrams produced by hand, scanned and images inserted into the document, and another 26% of etmas were completely handwritten and then scanned. Just over half of the etmas (52%) were submitted as Microsoft Word files, 43% were submitted as pdf files, and there were small percentages submitted as image files, as rtf files or in alternative word processor formats (e.g. OpenOffice or Star Office). Word files were used more frequently for S381 etmas than for SMT359 (57% vs 45%) and pdf files were used less frequently (37% vs 51%). Difficulties in learning how to use the marking system The SMT359 and S381 ALs were provided with a set of notes/guidelines about using the Tablet PC for marking etmas. These were based on feedback provided by S207 ALs about their experience with etma marking in the previous two years. Most of the ALs found these notes useful (7 very useful, 7 useful, 4 moderately useful and 1 of little use), and none of them reported problems learning how to use the Tablet PC for marking. A few minor additions to the notes were suggested, and these will be incorporated in the 2009 version. Ergonomic considerations Six ALs made comments on ergonomic issues associated with the use of Tablet PCs for etma marking. One tutor said it was difficult to find a comfortable position for marking, and eventually propped the Tablet PC on a bookstand with an external keyboard and mouse at one side. Another found that lying on the sofa with his knees drawn up and Tablet PC on his thighs worked well. A third said that he could write on the Tablet PC easiest with it at 45 degrees, with the lower part on his lap and the upper part on a table edge. Two ALs found the tablet pen uncomfortable; it was too small for one, who would appreciate a better pen next time, and the other found that their hand ached after marking assignments from holding the pen too hard. Another AL commented that the Tablet PC itself is very poor from an H&S viewpoint. The notes provided to ALs (see previous paragraph) highlighted a number of ergonomic issues, including the need to find a comfortable working position, but did not mention the pen problems. The next edition of the notes will be revised to include additional 'ergonomic advice. Marking procedures used by ALs Two-thirds of ALs marked and commented on all etmas using PDF Annotator. This meant that they had to first convert non-pdf files (mostly Microsoft Word files) to pdf using PDF Creator. The other third of the ALs marked the pdf files they received using PDF Annotator, but marked Word files using Word. A variety of techniques were used to mark in Word: two ALs used ink annotation alone, three others used ink annotation in combination with 27

5 either the Comment facility or text boxes or Track Changes, and one AL who had declined the loan of a Tablet PC used keyboard entry only. Comparison of etma marking with paper TMA marking ALs were asked to respond to 10 multiple-choice questions that asked them to compare the two marking methods. Each question used a five-point scale that extended from Much less/shorter, through About the same, to Much more/longer. On four of the questions, 70% or more of responders thought their marking of paper TMAs and etmas was about the same, and there was little difference between the responses of SMT359 and S381 ALs: these four items asked about the number of comments on the script, the length of comments on the script, the helpfulness of the comments and their legibility. However, about 50% of ALs thought that their PT3 comments for etmas were longer than those for paper TMAs, and this difference was much greater for S381 than SMT359 (66% vs 27%). The longer PT3 comments are presumably a consequence of the fact that the electronic PT3 will expand to accommodate as much as an AL wants to enter. About 75% of the ALs thought that etma marking was more complex than marking paper TMAs, and 50% thought etma marking was more stressful. There was a large difference between the views of ALs for the two courses; 91% of SMT359 ALs thought etma marking was more complex compared with 55% for S381 ALs, and 73% of SMT359 ALs found etma marking more stressful, whereas only 22% of S381 ALs thought it was more stressful and 44% thought it was less stressful. Another area that was explored was the flexibility and convenience of the two methods of marking. Half of the ALs thought that etma marking was less flexible (and 22% more flexible) and 60% thought it was less convenient (30% more convenient), and again there was a difference between the two courses. For SMT359, 60% thought etma marking was less flexible and none thought it was more flexible, whereas for S381 38% said etma marking was less flexible and 50% said more flexible. Time required to mark TMAs is another important issue. Overall, 55% of ALs thought it took longer to mark etmas than paper TMAs, 35% thought it they took about the same time, and 10% thought etmas took less time. The SMT359 results were more skewed towards etmas taking longer to mark: 72% of SMT359 ALs said etmas took longer, and none of them thought they took less time. In comparison, 33% of S381 ALs said etmas took longer, and 22% thought they took less time. The aspects of marking that ALs thought increased the time required to mark etmas included: the need to convert files to pdf format for marking with PDF Annotator; getting out the computer and setting it up; downloading and uploading etma files from the file handler; revising comments to make them clearer or more legible; redoing comments that had been accidentally deleted; and fiddling around with the positions of text boxes. Things identified as reducing the time required to mark etmas included: having everything (students answers, PT3s, tutor notes, model answers) available in electronic form, so that comments and solutions could be cut and pasted; ability to type the PT3 rather than handwriting it; not having to post marked TMAs to WH. Advantages of using the Tablet PC The ALs were asked about the advantages of using the Tablet PC compared with paper marking, and the main points they mentioned were: the ability to annotate etmas by hand in the same way that they would annotate paper TMAs; the ability to erase comments, or to revise them; they thought their comments were often more considered, since they could be changed if necessary after reading a later part of the answer; comments could be more legible though it may be necessary to write more slowly, or to rewrite comments; hand writing comments is faster than using a keyboard; the ease of inserting extra pages for additional comments or for pasting model answers; flexibility and ease of use of the electronic PT3 form; no longer needing to contend with the piles of paper associated with conventional TMA marking; also, the pages can't get out of order; 28

6 useful to have previous etmas and PT3s available for reference, either when a student raises query or when marking subsequent assignments; avoids use of the paper-based mail delivery system; it is easier to upload marked etmas than to post paper TMAs; etmas can be accessed when away from home anywhere there is a broadband connection. Disadvantages of using the Tablet PC The disadvantages of using the Tablet PC compared with paper marking that ALs mentioned were: the extra time required for marking; the hassle of setting up the Tablet PC and downloading and returning etmas; converting files to pdf format was tedious; it was difficult to browse through pages to get an overview to ensure that the comments were appropriate, and difficult to lay out pages and compare several scripts to ensure consistency; it was inconvenient to switch between different students files if trying to mark each question as a batch; being tied to the computer for marking; the weight and bulk of the Tablet PC. 29

7 Extra features that would improve etma marking The main suggestions for improvements to the etma marking process were: improving the clunky, cumbersome file handler software that currently causes headaches ; supplying a USB keyboard; enhancements to PDF Annotator that allowed more-flexible formatting of text boxes; providing MathType for ALs. Student feedback ALs did not receive much feedback from the students who submitted etmas, but what they did receive was generally positive. There were a number of comments about the quick turnaround and some students commented on the legibility and readability of the comments that ALs made in the returned file. The fact that a very large majority of the students who tried etmas continued to submit their assignments in this way is a good indication of student satisfaction with this method. Additional advice for students ALs made a number of suggestions for additional advice that the Course Teams could provide to students about producing their etmas. These included: more advice about production of etmas that include scanned documents, particularly about file size, resolution and legibility; emphasizing the requirement to submit a single file rather than a set of image files; advice on producing equations, for example, using Equation Editor, MathsType, or equivalent; asking students to leave generous margins and space between parts of questions so that there is plenty of space for their tutor to insert comments; asking students to submit in pdf format, so that ALs don t have to do the file conversion. Overall views about marking etmas compared with marking paper TMAs The views expressed by ALs were categorized as indicating preference for etmas, preference for paper TMAs, happy with either or no preference expressed. Eight ALs preferred marking etmas, and comments included: I think it s been a great help to my ability to mark and send comments promptly back to the students. Generally I find it much better because of the ability to edit comments. Overall I prefer the Tablet PC approach using the annotating pen being able to write directly on the script is really important. I found it a very positive experience. The etma marking was easier and faster overall, and I would have much preferred if all my students had submitted etmas. Four ALs indicated a preference for paper TMAs: [Marking etmas] is a bit more stressful and time consuming but not enough to put me off. I have a preference for paper TMAs [because ETMAs take more time]. [Need for access to computer] makes etma system slightly less convenient. Marking on paper is easier and less time consuming (to my surprise). Two AL indicated that they were happy with both etmas and paper TMAs, and five did not express a preference. Three ALs stressed that the Tablet PC was essential for etma marking. If we are going to have etmas then I think a Tablet PC is essential. It makes all the difference between etmas being practicable and not being practicable. I would not be happy marking etmas on these courses without one. 30

8 Without a Tablet PC I would not want to mark a Physics etma because of the difficulty and time in writing out and correcting equations and diagrams. I am perfectly happy with marking either. However, I would not be happy to mark etmas if I did not have a Tablet PC. ALs were also asked to express their preference for etma marking or paper marking using a fivepoint scale (Strongly prefer paper, slightly prefer paper, about the same, slightly prefer etmas, strongly prefer etmas). The ALs were evenly split with 45% preferring paper, 45% preferring etmas and 10% ranking them about the same. However, the overall data masks a significant difference between the views of ALs for the two courses: 64% of SMT359 ALs prefer paper TMAs and only 27% prefer etmas, whereas for S381 the proportions are reversed, with 22% preferring paper and 66% preferring etmas. Hints and advice for colleagues ALs were asked if they had any helpful hints or advice that they would like circulated to their colleagues. The main suggestions were: buy a USB keyboard; this makes it easy to mix ink comments and text boxes on the script, and easy to complete the PT3 form, without having to reorient the screen of the Tablet PC; mark some paper TMAs first; with paper scripts it is easier to mark a batch of answers to a particular question to get used to the marking scheme; it can be complicated to have files for a number of students open on screen at the same time; ergonomic advice that has already been mentioned in an earlier paragraph; and the comment: it s worth the pain. Monitoring The e-monitoring system appeared to work well from the viewpoints of the monitors and those being monitored. Several ALs commented on the quicker return of the monitoring report, and some appreciated the absence of extra piles of paper to file away. Some of the assignments that were monitored were paper TMAs that had been scanned by the assignment handling office, presumably because no etmas were available for a particular tutor and particular assignment, and a monitor suggested that colour scans would make it easier to distinguish the tutor s comments on an answer. Another monitor noted their surprise that a large proportion of ALs chose to annotate etmas with red ink, even though a wide range of ink colours is available. Other uses made of the Tablet PC Two thirds of the ALs used their Tablet PCs for other purposes besides marking SMT359 and S381 etmas. Other OU uses included marking etmas for other courses that they were tutoring (Y161, S104, S207, S250, S283), preparing material for tutorials and presenting material at tutorials by connecting to a data projector, and preparing screencasts for SMT359. Three ALs had used their Tablet PC for teaching/research purposes at other educational institutions. Other comments The final question allowed ALs to add any additional comments about the trial. Most of the specific comments have been included in earlier paragraphs, but about half of the ALs volunteered very positive comments about their experience and there were no negative comments. Here are some selected comments. I am sure that marking etmas was easier with this equipment. And I enjoyed taking part in the trial. I think a Tablet PC, as distinct from a non-tablet PC, is essential to the success of this trial. Thanks very much for conducting the trial! I feel I and my students have benefitted from the experience. Very glad to have taken part in it! The etma system in general seems to work very smoothly. Was very useful and an interesting experience. 31

9 5 Discussion of results The overall picture that emerges from the AL feedback is that Tablet PCs provide an acceptable way of marking physics and astronomy etmas, with a fairly even split between those who prefer to mark etmas and those who prefer to mark paper TMAs. There are differences between the two courses: S381 ALs are much more favourably disposed towards etmas than SMT359 ALs, they provide more encouragement to students to use the etma system and they receive a higher proportion of assignments electronically. These differences are likely to be due to a combination of factors, which could include: S381 requires less extensive use of mathematical equations and complex notation in TMA solutions than does SMT359. S381 requires students to make more use of a computer than does SMT359; it includes activities that involve use of spreadsheets, accessing an image archive, finding information from the web and studying various multimedia packages. S381 ALs have better ICT skills, or are more willing to adopt new technology. S381 students have better ICT skills, or are more willing to adopt new technology. However, it is not clear which of these might be most significant, and we have no evidence to support the statements in the last two bullet points. The majority of ALs for each course believe that the comments they made on etmas were about the same as their comments on paper TMAs, and the remainder thought that they made more comments, longer comments, more-helpful comments and more-legible comments on etmas. Monitors reports also indicated that there was generally very little difference between the quality of feedback on etmas and paper TMAs. However, there was a larger spread of AL opinions about the two marking processes. The balance of opinion was that etma marking is more complex, more stressful, less flexible, less convenient and requires more time, and a higher proportion of SMT359 ALs held these views than of S381 ALs. A significant proportion of ALs thought etma marking was less stressful, more flexible and more convenient, and these opinions were more widespread among the S381 ALs. Given that ALs had not used the etma system and had not used a Tablet PC prior to this trial, the balance of opinion is not surprising. We would certainly expect that after a second year of marking etmas, the complexity, stress and time associated with etma marking would be reduced. We anticipate that the proportion of etmas for the Level 3 courses will be higher in future presentations since students will be aware at the time they register that e-submission is an option and is encouraged. In addition, a higher proportion of students will have gained experience of etmas in previous courses and will want to continue to use electronic submission. The fact that 90% of students who tried the etma system did not revert to paper submission is an indication of the appeal of this way of working. The survey provided some evidence that etma submission rates were higher when an AL had encouraged electronic submission rather than taking a neutral stance. It is likely that ALs who prefer etmas will give more encouragement to students to submit electronically in the next course presentations that they tutor, and the experience gained in the 2008 presentations will enable all ALs to provide better advice and support to students about etma submission. This is also likely to enhance the etma submission rates. Students were provided with information on the course websites about producing an etma, and this included advice about reducing the file size for scanned pages and about submitting their etma as a single file. However, half of the ALs reported that they had problems with some etmas produced with scanners. Some students submitted very large files, and some submitted a set of image files rather than combining the files into a single document. This created extra work for ALs, but generally they were able to advise students how to produce acceptable etma files for subsequent assignments. In hindsight it is clear that the advice on the website could have been much more explicit about acceptable file sizes and formats for scanned documents, and appropriate changes will be made to this advice for the next presentations of the courses. These 32

10 changes should reduce the number of assignments submitted in unsuitable formats and make etma marking more straightforward and less time consuming for ALs. 6 Future developments In 2009 we will extend the use of Tablet PCs for etma marking to two more Level 3 physics and astronomy courses, SM358 The quantum world and S357 Space, time and cosmology. SM358 is presented in alternate years with SMT359, has an initial registration of 300+, and two-thirds of its ALs also tutor SMT359 and will therefore already be familiar with using the Tablet PC for etma marking. S357 is presented in alternate years with S381, has an initial registration of 300+, and three of its ALs have used a Tablet PC for marking in other courses. In 2010, S357 and S381 will be replaced by two new astronomy courses, S382 and S383. It is likely that many of the ALs who have tutored S357 and S381 will be appointed to teach the two new courses, and will be able to make use of their Tablet PC marking skills in those courses. Feedback from SMT359 and S381 ALs has suggested a number of enhancements that could be made to the notes about etma marking that are provided for ALs and to the notes about producing and submitting etmas that are provided for students. Both sets of notes will be revised and made available to ALs and students of SM358 and S357 at the start of the 2009 presentations. In particular, the student notes will be modified to include more specific advice about scanning handwritten assignments and combining scanned images into a single document. During 2008 three of the SMT359 ALs and a Walton Hall member of the course team used Tablet PCs to produce screencasts of solutions to all of the TMA questions, solutions to half of the questions for the 2006 exam paper, a 20-minute presentation giving advice about the examination, and screencast presentations to enhance some of the e-tutorials (Stansfield and Freake, 2008). Preliminary data about the use of these screencasts by students is very positive and an online survey of students is being carried out in November 2008, the results of which will be available on the πcetl website early in We anticipate that other physics and astronomy course teams will wish to make similar uses of screencasts for student support, thus gaining additional benefits from providing Tablet PCs for ALs. The ALs Tablet PCs could also prove very useful in synchronous e-tutorials provided using the Elluminate system. Physics and astronomy courses are undertaking a number of trials of the Elluminate system in 2009, ranging from large group tutorials down to sessions for individual students. The ability to use a Tablet PC to write on the Elluminate whiteboard could greatly enhance these tutorial sessions. Finally, we note that in 2010 the support for the Level 3 physics and astronomy courses will be provided by student support teams (SSTs). In view of the success of the etma Tablet PC marking trials, and emerging applications for Tablet PCs for producing screencasts and for communicating equations and diagrams in Elluminate tutorials, it will be important to provide Tablet PCs for all of the ALs in these SSTs. Consideration also needs to be given to how the use of Tablet PCs can be extended to other subject areas in the University that have similar challenges in communicating complex notation and diagrams. 6 Conclusion This πcetl project has demonstrated that a Tablet PC provides an effective and acceptable method of marking physics and astronomy etmas from the viewpoints of both the ALs and the students. For S207 and S381, about 50% of students are now submitting assignments electronically, with a somewhat lower proportion for SMT359, and it is highly unlikely that this could have been achieved without equipping the ALs with Tablet PCs. 33

11 Acknowledgements We are grateful to the ALs who participated in this project, and whose responses to the online survey were used as the basis of this report. For SMT359, Stan Zockowski (R01), Craig McFarlane (R02), Bob Meggs (R03), Mike Thorpe (R04), Gillian Stansfield (R06), Keith Adkins R07), Richard Potton (R08), Hara Papathanassiou (R09), Ian Malcolm (R11), Sam Nolan (R12) and David Dolman (R13). For S381, Hara Papathanassiou (R01), Martin Hardcastle (R02), Michelle Felton (R02), Alasdair Allan (R03), Iain McDonald (R04), Kevin Marshall (R06), Judith Croston (R07), Lowry McComb (R09), Tony Jones (R10), Fiona Vincent (R11) and Ian van Breda (R13). We are also grateful to Mike Watkins (SMT359 Course Manager), Gillian Knight (S381 Course Manager), Kevin Mayles (πcetl Centre Manager) and Diane Ford (πcetl Centre Assistant) for their contributions to running this project and to Asvin Savjani (Student Services), who provided data about etma submission rates and marks. This project would not have been possible without the funding and support provided by πcetl, which in turn is funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. References Chinery, P. and Heindörfer, F., PDF Creator software, free download from Freake, S. (2008) Marking and commenting on etmas using a Tablet PC, guidance notes provided for ALs in January 2008, Freake, S. (2008) πcetl Tablet PC etma marking trial: AL questionnaire 2008, Grahl Software Design, PDF Annotator software, Underwood, J. and Freake, S. (2007) The use of Tablet PCs for marking physics experiments, project report, Stansfield, G. and Freake, S. (2008) Video screencasts for student support, f480f84 34